This is coming from the White House's own site...
11:45 A.M. EST
Q Welcome back. Joining me now the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. Mr. Vice President, thanks for joining us.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Hello, Tony. It's good to talk to you.
Q So the Democrats now have a plan. They call it Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in here that actually talks about attacking the bad guys. But let's talk about some of the things that at least have been mentioned in recent days and weeks by Democrats -- number one, the idea of strategic withdrawal from Iraq in order to "strengthen our position in the region."
My question to you is, is there any difference in your mind between strategic withdrawal and retreat?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, and, frankly, that would be exactly what Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda types have been predicting and betting on all along -- it's the idea that if they kill enough Americans, they can force us to change our policy. It would be a strategic retreat. It makes no sense at all to turn Iraq over to the terrorists. We can succeed in Iraq. We can complete the mission. We are making progress day by day. It's tough, hard work, but it's very important that we prevail there, just as we're prevailing in Afghanistan.
Q You mentioned bin Laden who likes to talk about strong horse versus weak horse. He has predicted that the United States would become a weak horse. Are you saying that the Democrats, rather than as they have promised to do, to capture bin Laden, that they'd be giving in to him instead?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think there's any question about that if you were to withdraw from Iraq. The al Qaeda presence there is significant. Mr. Zarqawi, the top terrorist in Iraq, is the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. He's pledged loyalty to Osama bin Laden; that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, I think the danger would be, obviously, that you'd turn the country over to the worst possible elements, and it would become a safe haven for terrorists. It makes no sense at all, and it's totally unnecessary.
Q I've talked to a number of people who have been in Iraq. The same stories keep coming back, which is that Iraqis increasingly are taking responsibility for military and police actions. Do you think it's conceivable or even likely that by the end of this year, there will be fewer American troops on the ground in Iraq?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that's a possibility, but we've been very firm, Tony, in refusing to put a timetable on it. We talk about it in terms of conditions on the ground. Obviously, there are a number of things happening that should result in that kind of outcome down the road. One is the progress that's being made on the political front as the Iraqis put together a government under their new constitution, and they're working on that very hard, day in and day out; and the other is the progress that's being made training Iraqi security forces and getting them into the fight.
They're now taking more and more responsibility for their own security. And those two developments are key ultimately to our being able to turn the situation over to them.
Q Today's release by Democrats contains a lot of second-guessing about what led up to the war and the early execution of it, including the notion that it was based on faulty security. Recently a number of documents that had been retrieved from Iraq have been translated, and what we're starting to get is a picture of Saddam Hussein actively involved in training terrorists, and even talking about weapons of mass destruction. Is it possible that we actually underestimated Saddam's involvement in the international terror network?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, some of us didn't. I think there are -- there's been a debate, obviously, and we've got a lot of folks who don't believe that there was any kind of a relationship there between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I think the record is abundantly clear that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, a prime sponsor of terror. This is the guy who was making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers. This is the guy who provided a safe haven for Abu Nidal. The track record there is very clear.
George Tenet, Director of the CIA, went before the Senate Intel Committee at one point and said there was a relationship between Iraq and the al Qaeda that went back to the early '90s. So I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with some pretty nefarious characters out there. And he was legitimately labeled by our State Department as a state sponsor of terror.
Q Including Osama bin Laden?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting, obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden.
Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.
Interview continued here...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060329-2.html
Can anyone explain to me what the FUCK is going on here?
Linear Mode
